Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Naval Communication -2- 14 November 1984 <br />2. No plan was submitted to investigate soil contamination. <br />3. No plan was submitted to define the hydrogeological condi- <br />tions of the entire facility. <br />4. No plan was submitted to investigate ground water pollution <br />on the entire facility. <br />My specific comments are as follows: <br />1. The soil sampling program (one paragraph) is inadequate. <br />while it is desireable to sample soil from well drilling <br />practices (if a hollow stem auger is used), the chosen <br />locations are not adequate to define soil contamination, <br />which is a major concern in this investigation. The greatest <br />potential for soil contamination exists within the landfill <br />areas and the areas where it is likely that spills occurred <br />or that tanks may have leaked. <br />2. where is the "golf course well", and has it been sampled for <br />contamination? <br />3. The "background surface water monitoring station locations" <br />could, because of tidal influence, contain pollutants which <br />originated in the contaminated areas, flowed to the drainage <br />ditch, and were pumped to Burns Cut off. These are question- <br />able "background" monitoring locations. <br />4. The only area investigated by Nav Comm with regard to past <br />and present disposal practices was the former landfill and <br />burning area. were any wastes disposed of anywhere else on <br />the facility? Were employees interviewed regarding the whole <br />facility? <br />5. what is the integrity of the waste tanks associated with <br />buildings 707, 803, 816B and 816C? This must be investi- <br />gated. <br />6. What is the status of the investigation on the GSA waste <br />disposal practices? <br />DTW:Ljl <br />